U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Use of Traffic Channelization Devices at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

DOT/FRA/ORD-0X/XX Final Report

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

Safety of Highway Railroad Grade Crossings

DOT/FRA/ORD – 12/11 Final Report

August 2012
NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein 

solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this 

report.

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof.
i

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

 298-102

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

August 2012

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Technical Report

July 2008 – September 2009

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Use of Traffic Channelization Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97A1/FG274

6. AUTHOR(S)

Suzanne M. Horton

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA 02142

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-09-13

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings series

Program Manager: Tarek Omar. D.Sc.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Traffic channelization devices have found new application at highway-rail grade crossings with active warning devices. 

Numerous studies conducted at locations where they have been installed show positive changes in unsafe driver behavior as a 

result of the treatments. When meeting certain requirements, traffic channelization devices and median barriers are an approved 

supplemental safety measure for the establishment of quiet zones. Traffic channelization devices are low cost and this makes

them an attractive option for improving safety at highway-rail grade crossings.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Highway-rail grade crossing, traffic channelization devices, median barriers, safety

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

27

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm2) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds 

(lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F
i

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) 

Office of Research and Development sponsored the work leading to this report. The author 

would like to thank Sam Alibrahim, P.E., Chief of the Signals, Train Control, and 

Communications Division, FRA; and Leonard Allen, Program Manager, Signals, Train Control,

and Communications Division, FRA, for their guidance and direction in developing this report.

The author would also like to acknowledge Marco daSilva, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and 

Trespass Safety Research Program Manager, Systems Safety and Engineering Division, USDOT 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s John A. Volpe National Transportation 

Systems (Volpe Center); Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator of Surface Transportation 

Programs, Center of Innovation for Physical Infrastructure Systems, Volpe Center; John 

McGuiggin, P.E., (former) Chief of the Systems Safety and Engineering Division, Volpe Center;

and Glenn Goulet, Chief of the Infrastructure and Facility Engineering Division, Volpe Center,

for their leadership and direction. Erica Squillacioti, Systems Safety and Engineering Division,

Volpe Center, provided technical support.

Special thanks are given to Paul Worley, Director of Engineering and Safety, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation Rail Division, for contributing photographs of traffic 

channelization device installations at highway-rail grade crossings.
ii

Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2

2 Traffic Channelization Options............................................................................................... 4

3 Design and Construction ......................................................................................................... 7

4 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 8

5 Installations at Crossings within a Quiet Zone...................................................................... 11

6 Funding.................................................................................................................................. 13

7 Issues and Considerations...................................................................................................... 15

8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 17

9 References ............................................................................................................................. 18

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 20
iii

Illustrations

Figure 1. Traffic Channelization Device Installation at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

(photo courtesy of NCDOT) .........................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Wide Raised Median: Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, NC................................................4

Figure 3. Mountable Raised Curb System with Vertical Panels (photo courtesy of NCDOT) ....................6

Figure 4. Sugar Creek Road Crossing, NC Sealed Corridor (photo courtesy of NCDOT) ..........................9

Figure 5. Mountable Raised Curb with Vertical Panels: Upper Lake Road Lexington, NC ....................15
1

Executive Summary

Traffic channelization devices have found new application as effective safety measures at 

highway-rail grade crossings. The installation of traffic channelization devices at crossings with 

active warning systems (i.e., flashing lights and/or gate arms) provides a visual and physical 

barrier to deter motorists from entering the opposing traffic lane to circumvent the gate arms. 

Deterring such risky driver behavior creates a safer highway-rail grade crossing environment.

Different traffic channelization options are available. Some configurations are intended to be 

permanent fixtures and others are temporary. Each option has its advantages, based on the 

roadway design, the amount of funding available for the project, the community’s needs and 

wishes, and traffic patterns. Decisions on whether to install median barriers at a crossing should 

be made using professional traffic engineering judgment and evaluation.

As the number of installations of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings 

has increased, studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of these crossing 

treatments in reducing unsafe driver behaviors. These studies have shown conclusively that 

unsafe driver behavior changes appreciably when median barriers are installed at the crossings. 

One of the most common uses of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings is 

for crossings at locations within a designated quiet zone. The Final Rule on the Use of 

Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 

CFR), Parts 222 and 229) permits the use of traffic channelization devices or non-traversable 

curbs that meet specific requirements as supplemental safety measures (SSM). The median 

barriers or channelization devices must extend 100 feet (ft) from the crossing gate arm, or, if an 

intersection is within 100 ft of the crossing, the channelization device must extend 60 ft. The 

Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings states that 

channelization devices have an effectiveness rating of 0.75, and non-traversable curbs have an 

effectiveness rating of 0.80. The effectiveness rating is the reduction in likelihood of a collision 

at the crossing as the result of the SSM. Thus, a traffic channelization device that is used as an 

SSM will reduce the risk of a collision at that crossing. The Final Rule also permits the use of 

channelization devices to be applied as an alternative safety measure within quiet zones with less 

than 60-ft clearance. Alternative safety measures include SSMs that do not fully comply with 

all the rule’s requirements. The benefits of installing channelization less than 60 ft in length 

have not been quantified. 

Prior to installation of a traffic channelization device, an engineering analysis of roadway usage 

should be conducted to ensure that the installation does not result in unsafe conditions. Such an

analysis allows for the most appropriate safety improvement to be identified for each crossing. 

Traffic channelization devices are considered to be a low-cost improvement that have effectively

changed unsafe behavior by drivers at highway-rail grade crossings. 
2

1. Introduction

Traffic channelization devices have long been used on highways to separate vehicular traffic or 

to facilitate smooth traffic flow. These devices are now also being used in new applications as 

safety measures at highway-rail grade crossings. Since 1994, collisions at highway-rail grade 

crossings have been reduced by over 60 percent. However, in 2011, there were 265 fatalities in 

1,967 highway-rail grade crossing collisions [1]. Eliminating these incidents altogether 

continues to pose a challenge. Studies on driver behavior at grade crossings indicate that there is 

a strong correlation between violations of the crossing warning devices and collisions between 

trains and motor vehicles. Deterring the risky behavior of driving around a lowered gate arm

makes the grade crossing a safer environment. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

supports the use of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings with active 

warning devices, where feasible. In 2008, the FRA Office of Safety issued the brochure 

Guidance on the Use of Traffic Channelizing Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings [2]. 

The brochure was intended to assist in the selection of the appropriate traffic control device. It 

has been distributed on the FRA website and at rail conferences with the hope of encouraging 

traffic engineers to utilize traffic channelization treatments at grade crossings. 

One of the most appealing aspects of using traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade 

crossings is the cost. The implementation of a mountable curb with upright panels, such as the 

one shown in Figure 1, costs approximately $14,000. This cost, compared to the cost of

outfitting a crossing with a wayside horn ($100,000+) or four-quadrant gates ($250,000), makes 

the traffic channelization device a very attractive option [3]. Median barriers are also a low-cost 

and highly effective means of reducing grade crossing collisions.

The most common application of median barriers and traffic channelization devices at grade 

crossings has been at crossings within a quiet zone. The Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive 

Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings requires SSMs to reduce the risk at a crossing to a 

prescribed level. On the list of approved SSMs is a median barrier or other traffic channelization 

device of at least 60 ft. As more communities seek to establish quiet zones, the use of median 

barriers and traffic channelizing devices is expected to increase.

This document will provide information about the use of traffic channelization devices at 

highway-rail grade crossings. Within the text, the terms median barrier and traffic 

channelization device are used interchangeably. 
3

Figure 1. Traffic Channelization Device Installation at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

(photo courtesy of NCDOT)
4

2. Traffic Channelization Options

The USDOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FRA have previously issued 

guidance on the types of traffic channelization devices that can be installed at grade crossings. 

Complete information on these types of treatments is available in the USDOT FHWA HighwayRail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group’s Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings [4] or USDOT FRA’s Guidance on the Use of Traffic 

Channelizing Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings [2]. Below is summary information 

about the potential use of traffic channelization devices available for installation at grade 

crossings.

Wide Raised Medians

A wide raised median is the most aesthetically pleasing option because it provides the 

opportunity to include landscaping in its design. Although it is not a barrier, it can be an 

effective deterrent against violations of the active crossing warning devices. Wide raised 

medians are durable enough to withstand snow plows, which is a concern in colder climates. 

The landscaping, however, can increase maintenance costs, and installation may require 

excavation and cutting of the roadway, which potentially increases costs. Figure 2 shows a wide 

raised median installation in North Carolina.

Figure 2. Wide Raised Median: Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, NC
5

Barrier Wall Systems

The barrier wall system is a concrete barrier similar to a Jersey barrier installation commonly 

used on divided highways. One advantage to this type of traffic channelization device is that it is 

the most effective deterrent against circumventing lowered gates. Another advantage is that the 

concrete wall is very durable. However, the installation of a barrier wall requires a wide section 

between the roadway lanes and this can make it difficult for vehicles, such as emergency 

vehicles, to make U-turns; it can also present problems with sight distance for drivers at the 

crossing.

Non-mountable Curb Islands

The non-mountable curb island is usually 6–9 inches (in) high and 2-ft wide. They are designed 

such that common roadway vehicles cannot traverse the island. The height of this device does 

lead to concerns about increased crash risk and severity of motor vehicle accidents along the 

roadway. Therefore, the design and installation of such a treatment must be carefully considered 

when installing a non-mountable curb island. Retroreflective markings are recommended to 

increase the curb’s visibility in low-light conditions.

Mountable Raised Curb Systems

The mountable raised curb system is the most cost effective traffic channelization device 

installation. The curb itself is generally less than 6 in high and 12 in wide. The installation has 

minimal impact on the existing roadway and can be removed if necessary. Raised vertical panels 

are typically installed with this system. The panels provide a visual deterrent to motorists intent 

on circumventing a lowered gate. The panels are commonly made of a durable polymer and are

reboundable; they also permit vehicles to cross over them. Because vehicles can cross over these 

curbs, this system requires regular maintenance to replace damaged vertical panels. Figure 3 is 

an example of a mountable raised curb installation.
6

Figure 3. Mountable Raised Curb System with Vertical Panels (photo courtesy of NCDOT)

Traffic Calming Devices

FHWA defines traffic calming devices as physical measures that reduce the effects of aggressive 

motor vehicle use and make the roadway a friendlier environment for nonmotorized vehicles or 

users. Traffic calming devices are intended to reduce the speeds of motor vehicles. Median 

barriers and traffic channelization devices are considered traffic calming devices. Additional 

measures may be used in concert with median barriers at crossings to improve safety. Some 

additional measures include speed humps, curb extensions, pavement markings, and textured 

pavement. The objective of implementing traffic calming measures is to make the crossing 

environment safer for all users, motorized and nonmotorized.
7

3. Design and Construction

This document is not intended to provide formal design criteria or specifications for installing 

traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings. Other sources can offer such

detailed guidance. Recommendations for typical location plans for crossing signals on divided 

roadways can be found in the USDOT FHWA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Handbook [5]. 

The handbook contains design plans for roadways that can accommodate the crossing signals in 

the median, as well as those with insufficient width in the median. The plans are only intended 

to be illustrative designs, and any actual installation should be built based on sound engineering 

judgment and evaluation. Criteria for the design of median islands are also available through the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ publication, A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highway and Streets [6].

Establishing a uniform process for implementation of traffic channelizing devices at highwayrail grade crossings may facilitate their use. The North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (MetroLink) have both issued 

guidance on median barrier installation. NCDOT issued Guidelines for Median Separation at 

Highway-Railway Grade Crossings [7]. These guidelines were developed to establish 

consistency and uniformity in median barrier installations throughout the State. Included in the 

guidelines are installation details and design drawings. These design specifications are included 

for various roadway configurations and are intended to be a reference for the optimal layout and 

construction of median separations. MetroLink issued the publication, SCRRA Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual [8]. This document 

includes MetroLink’s standards and design criteria for median barrier installation. Standard 

layout and construction guidance help ensure that the traffic channelizing devices are installed 

appropriately wherever they are applied throughout the system.
8

4. Effectiveness

The placement of median barriers and traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade 

crossings has become increasingly widespread. Many of these installations have included 

analytical evaluations on the reduction of risky driver behavior. Driver behavior continues to be 

the leading cause of incidents at highway-rail grade crossings. Because incidents at grade 

crossings are relatively rare events, it would be difficult to detect performance differences during 

an evaluation study. Motorist and pedestrian violations represent a reasonable surrogate, because

this behavior is a precursor to grade crossing incidents [9]. A study by Cooper et al. discussed 

the driver’s inability to accurately perceive the distance and speed of an oncoming train [10]. 

This study suggested that there is “more to be gained by preventing gate running, or at least 

making it very difficult, than by attempting to aid drivers in making a better informed decision as 

to whether or not there is sufficient time to clear the crossing before the train arrives.” Median 

barrier and traffic channelization device installations at highway-rail grade crossings discourage 

drivers from driving around a lowered gate by presenting a physical barrier. 

One of the most prominently documented uses of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail 

grade crossings is on the North Carolina “Sealed Corridor.” NCDOT is systematically outfitting 

the grade crossings along the rail line from Greensborough to Charlotte with SSMs. Because of 

their relative low cost and high effectiveness, traffic channelization devices are NCDOT’s 

preferred engineering treatment to deter violators at crossings [11]. A total of 189 public

crossings were upgraded or closed during the first three phases of the Sealed Corridor initiative

(through September 2004). Of those, 18 were outfitted with median barriers. The installation at 

the Sugar Creek Road crossing shown in Figure 4 resulted in a 77 percent decrease in motor 

vehicle violations [12]. The Volpe Center conducted an assessment of the grade crossing 

improvements along the Sealed Corridor. The analysis showed that during the second and third 

phases of the Sealed Corridor project, the installation of median barriers was found to have 

“saved” approximately one life from the time of installation until December 2004 [11].
9

Figure 4. Sugar Creek Road Crossing, NC “Sealed Corridor” (photo courtesy of NCDOT)

During 2005, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) conducted an evaluation 

of the effectiveness of traffic channelization on driver behavior at highway-rail grade crossings. 

The study was part of a research grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Flexible 

median barriers were installed at the Everett Avenue crossing in Chelsea, MA. The study 

collected a sample size of 500 train events used for baseline and demonstration periods. During 

the baseline period, 69 instances of unsafe driver behavior were observed. Unsafe driver 

behavior was classified as (1) vehicle was on the tracks at time of gate activation, 

(2) vehicle entered the crossing during gate descent, and (3) vehicle circumvented a lowered gate 

arm. 

During the demonstration period, when driver behavior was observed with the median barriers in 

place, only nine instances of unsafe driver behavior were observed. This led to a reduction of 87 

percent in the number of unsafe vehicular events at the crossing [13].

The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, has conducted a number of field tests designed to evaluate 

driver’s response to traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings. The study at 

North 141st Street in Waverly, NE, was conducted over a 4-month period. The study evaluated 

unsafe driver actions before and after the installation of a centerline barrier. The unsafe actions 

were identified as (1) gate rushing to beat the train, (2) U-turns, (3) wrong side entry (after the 
10

barrier installation), (4) taking an alternative route, (5) backing up, and (6) running a red light at 

a nearby intersection to beat the train. The effects of median barriers were analyzed both by 

using a comparison t-test and a negative binomial model. The results showed a decrease in the 

total number of unsafe actions after the installation of the median barrier. For example, the mean 

number of gate rushes decreased by 35.5 percent after the installation [14].

Another similar study was conducted by the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, at M Street in 

Fremont, NE. The unsafe driver actions were the same as in the Waverly study, except the red 

light running was not applicable at the M Street crossing. This evaluation looked at three time 

periods: a baseline period, a period with limited installation in which a median barrier was 

installed but it did not extend fully to the gates, and a period with a fully installed median barrier. 

Like the Waverly study, the number of unsafe driver actions (except backing up) showed a 

significant decrease after the barrier was installed. As was found in the Waverly study, gate 

rushes were reduced. In this case for the limited and full installation scenarios, gate rushes were 

reduced by 36.8 and 31.5 percent, respectively [15].

Other studies conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the 

University of Florida showed decreases of motor vehicle violations by 78 and 96 percent, 

respectively [3]. These studies prove that installations of median barriers are effective in

deterring unsafe driver behavior at highway-rail grade crossings. All of the above-mentioned 

studies indicate that unsafe driver behaviors at grade crossings were reduced by 68 percent, on 

average, following the installation of traffic channelization devices. It should be noted that the 

Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings assigned a 

75-percent effectiveness rating to traffic channelization devices, which is in general agreement 

with these studies. 

In addition to reducing the number of unsafe driver actions at highway-rail grade crossings, 

traffic channelization devices can offer other benefits. When used on the roadway, traffic 

channelization devices are often used as a means of traffic calming. Traffic calming devices aim 

to reduce vehicular speeds and promote safe conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and 

residents. Reduced speeds approaching grade crossings promotes a safer environment and is 

consistent with virtually all applicable state traffic safety laws governing driver behavior [16]. 

The presence of traffic channelization devices also attracts attention to the upcoming crossing. 

Driver awareness of the crossing can facilitate better decisionmaking. 
11

5. Installations at Crossings within a Quiet Zone

One of the most frequent uses of median barriers at highway-rail grade crossings is in 

conjunction with the establishment of a quiet zone. The Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive 

Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings set forth a process for the establishment of quiet zones. 

A community can establish a quiet zone if the Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) is at or below the 

Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, if the QZRI is lowered to a level at or below the Risk 

Index with Horns by implementing sufficient SSMs, or if every crossing in the quiet zone is 

outfitted with one or more SSM. One of the SSMs identified in this rule is gates with medians or 

channelization devices. As of July 2012, the USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory had reports of 1,542 crossings with channelization devices installed; approximately 30 

percent of those crossings were within a quiet zone. In the States of Colorado, Kentucky, 

Massachusetts, and Vermont, the only crossings with channelization devices were located within 

quiet zones [17].

The use of channelization devices as SSMs must be compliant with the specifications outlined in 

the rule. The rule allows for two types of centerline barriers: channelization devices and nontraversable curbs (with and without channelization devices). The rule states that channelization 

devices have an effectiveness rating of 0.75, and non-traversable curbs have an effectiveness 

rating of 0.80. The effectiveness rating is the reduction in likelihood of a collision at the 

crossing as the result of the SSM installation.

Per the rule, the channelization devices or median barriers must be installed on both approaches 

to the crossing. This prevents drivers from circumventing the lowered gates by approaching the 

crossing in the opposing lane. The median barriers or channelization devices must extend 

100 ft in length from the crossing gate arm, or if an intersection is within 100 ft of the crossing, 

the channelization device must extend 60 ft. Any intersections within 60 ft of the crossing must 

be closed or relocated. The gap between the lowered gate and the channelization device must be 

1 ft or less. Installing a channelization device or a median barrier that meets these specifications 

will result in risk reduction credit when applying for quiet zone designation.

The Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings also permits 

channelization devices at quiet zones less than 60 ft to be applied as an alternative safety 

measure. Alternative safety measures include SSMs that do not fully comply with all the 

requirements. The benefits of installing channelization devices at quiet zones less than 60 ft 

have not been quantified. 

One major reason that channelization devices are a popular installation at quiet zones is the cost. 

Communities must improve or maintain their QZRI to justify the creation of a quiet zone. 
12

Traffic channelization devices are a type of SSM that lower the crossing risk at a relatively low 

cost.
13

6. Funding

The cost of upgrades and improvements is a universal concern among highway-rail grade 

crossing safety stakeholders. As established in earlier sections of this study, extremely costeffective options for traffic channelization are available. However, the installation of barrier 

walls or curbed medians may require excavation or other preparatory roadwork, which increases 

the cost of the project. Regardless of the type, however, funding mechanisms are in place to help 

finance the installation of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings. 

Federal Funding

The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), was signed into law in 2005. This legislation continued the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program, which set aside $880 million for distribution (over 4 years) under the 

Railway-Highway Crossing Program (under 23 USC 130). Projects that are eligible to be funded 

through the Railway-Highway Crossing Program include, but are not limited to, elimination of 

hazards, installation of protective devices, and grade crossing separation. The installation of 

median barriers at highway-rail grade crossings are eligible to be financed under this program. 

The Railway-Highway Crossing Program limits the federal share to 90 percent of the project

costs. 

In addition to the Railway-Highway Crossing Program set-aside funds, SAFETEA-LU also 

makes provisions for improvements at crossings on designated high-speed rail corridors 

(SAFETEA-LU section 1103 (f)). Eleven corridors in the United States have been identified as

federally designated high-speed rail corridors. If median barriers are installed at a crossing along 

one of these corridors, the project would be eligible for section 1103 (f) funding. Funding levels 

for this program were $10 million in fiscal year (FY) 2007, $12.5 million in FY 2008, $15 

million each in FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011, and $7.1 million for the first 6 months of 2012.

State Funding

Some States have their own grade crossing improvement funds. Illinois, for example, has a

Grade Crossing Protection Fund funded by a portion of the motor fuel tax. These funds are 

available to improve safety at public grade crossings; therefore, median barrier projects may be 

eligible. Each State funding program will have its own requirements and those requirements

should be investigated when pursuing a traffic channelization device installation.

Local Government Funding

As previously mentioned, installing traffic channelization devices at grade crossings is often a 

low cost means to improve safety. The potential benefits to a community can justify the low

price of mountable curbs with upright panels. Local governments may also be willing to fund 

portions of the project that are outside the normal scope of grade crossing safety improvements. 
14

For example, a redesign of a roadway to accommodate a proper median barrier installation may 

require the purchase of private property. The town or city is often the authority in the position to 

approach landowners and negotiate that purchase. 
15

7. Issues and Considerations

FRA promotes traffic channelization as a cost effective means to improve safety at highway-rail 

grade crossings. A successful median barrier project considers all potential impacts of the 

installation. If the crossing is on a route that is used by emergency vehicles or heavy trucks, it 

may be necessary to accommodate a U-turn for these vehicles. This is especially important for 

“humped” crossings that low-boy trailers could potentially get hung up on. To accommodate Uturns for large vehicles, a potential option is to utilize mountable raised curbs with vertical 

panels. These installations can be driven over, if necessary. And the replacement of the upright 

panels is easy and inexpensive. Generally, the maintenance requirements have been low, and the 

installations are durable. Figure 5 shows a mountable raised curb with vertical panels.

Figure 5. Mountable Raised Curb with Vertical Panels: Upper Lake Road Lexington, NC

A similar concern exists for the installation of median barriers on rural and semirural roadways. 

Often these rural roads accommodate large farm equipment. The width of these vehicles may be 

in excess of the lane demarcation, and, therefore, a median barrier at these locations would 

hinder the movement of these vehicles along the roadway. Roadways that are commonly used 

by wide vehicles and equipped with traffic channelization devices would likely experience 

additional maintenance costs as a result.
16

As stated in the Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 

the recommended length for a median barrier at a highway-rail grade crossing is 100 ft. 

However, a divided roadway for 100 ft could restrict access to intersecting streets or driveways

within the 100-foot zone. An analysis of traffic patterns should be performed to see whether the 

installation of a median barrier is appropriate for that location. The effectiveness of traffic 

channelization devices—of less than 60 ft or with breaks for intersecting roadways—in deterring 

violators has not been established. 

Although median barriers have proven effective at deterring motorist gate violations, they do not 

appear to affect pedestrian behavior. Crossings with an identified pedestrian safety problem 

cannot assume that traffic channelization devices on the roadway will alleviate the problem. The 

study done in Chelsea, MA, by the MBTA acknowledged that pedestrian actions at the crossing 

were unchanged following the installation of the traffic channelization devices [13]. Traffic 

channelization devices in the roadway median are not an effective measure to improve pedestrian 

safety at highway-rail grade crossings.

The installation of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings requires the 

cooperation of many stakeholders. It is in the interest of the railroad to improve safety at the 

crossing, and often the industry is the chief proponent of outfitting a crossing with traffic 

channelization devices. However, because the traffic channelization devices extend 60 to100 ft 

beyond the right of way, the roadway authority must also be involved. Local government 

involvement is also recommended to get buy-in to the project. Involving the local governing 

authorities in the process will help address any community concerns about the impact of the 

installation.
17

8. Conclusions

FRA encourages highway traffic engineers to consider the use of traffic channelization devices at 

highway-rail grade crossings with active warning devices. The use of traffic channelization 

should be determined on a crossing-by-crossing basis. Some crossings may require the roadway 

to be widened to accommodate the median barriers. Others may have intersecting streets or 

driveways within 100 ft of the crossing. The application of sound engineering judgment is 

advised for any safety improvement project.

The installation of traffic channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings has proven to be 

a cost-effective means of improving safety. Median barriers that meet the criteria within the 

Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horn are approved SSMs for the establishment of a quiet 

zone. 

Implementing median barriers at a highway-rail grade crossing with active warning devices can 

reduce the risk of a collision at that crossing. Many studies have shown that the installation of 

traffic channelization devices significantly reduced driver violations at highway-rail grade 

crossings. When considered together, the studies indicate that the installation of traffic 

channelization devices at highway-rail grade crossings reduces unsafe driver behaviors by an 

average of 68 percent. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that median barrier installations will 

reduce the likelihood of a collision at highway-rail grade crossings. 
18

9. References

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad AccidentIncident Reporting System – Highway-Rail Accidents, July 2012. 

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “Guidance on the 

Use of Traffic Channelizing Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,” Washington, 

DC: U.S. DOT, January 2008.

3. Code of Federal Regulations Volume 4, Title 49, Parts 222 and 229, “Final Rule on the 

Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,” August 17, 2006.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – Technical 

Working Group, “Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings,” Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, November 2002.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “RailroadHighway Grade Crossing Handbook – Revised Second Edition 2007,” Report FHWASA-07-010, Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, August 2007.

6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition”, Washington, DC, 2004. 

7. State of North Carolina Department of Transportation, “Guidelines for Median 

Separation at Highway/Railway At-Grade Crossings,” Raleigh, NC: NCDOT, February 

2008.

8. Southern California Regional Rail Authority, “SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual,” June 2009.

9. Abraham, J., Datta, T., and Datta, S. “A Study of Surrogate Measures for Rail-Highway 

Crossing Accidents,” prepared for Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 

January 1997.

10. Cooper, D.L., MacLeod, K.E., and Ragland, D.R. “Rail Crossings: A Strategy to Select 

Countermeasure Improvements for Rail-Highway Crossings in California,” prepared for 

the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 2007.

11. Bien-Aime, P. “North Carolina Sealed Corridor Phase I, II and III Assessment–Draft 

Report,” prepared for Federal Railroad Administration, Cambridge, MA: U.S.DOT, 

August 2009.

12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad 

Development, “North Carolina Sealed Corridor Phase I U.S. DOT Assessment Report,” 

May 2002.

13. Wickham, K., and Cuthbertsome, D. “Study on Median Barriers for Traffic 

Channelization at Grade Crossings,” Report FTA-MA-26-7057, prepared for Federal 

Transit Administration, Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, June 2008.

14. Khattak, A.J. “Reducing Undesirable Actions of Motor Vehicle Drivers at Railroad–

Highway Grade Crossings,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, No. 2030, Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

D.C., 2007, pp. 54–58.

15. Khattak, A.J., and McKnight, G.A. “Gate Rushing at Highway-Railroad Grade 

Crossings,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 

Board, No. 2056, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 104-109. 
19

16. Jennings, L. S. “Compilation of Laws and Regulations Affecting Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings, Fifth Edition,” prepared for Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, 

DC: U.S. DOT, October 2009.

17. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, July 

2012.
20

Abbreviations and Acronyms

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FY fiscal year

MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

MetroLink Southern California Regional Rail Authority

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

QZRI Quiet Zone Risk Index

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A 

Legacy for Users

SSM supplemental safety measure

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center